Republic of the Philippines Regional Trial Court National Capital Judicial Region Pasig City

People of the Philippines, Plaintiff, -versusRomulo Takad, Accused, Crim. Case No.12345-H Violation of R.A. 6539 (Anti-Carnapping Act)

X----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x Defendant by counsel respectfully submits its memorandum in the case:

The Case The People of the Philippines charges Romulo Takad with the crime of violation of Republic Act 6539 or otherwise known as Anti-Carnapping Act for stealing the tricycle from Carlos Parlade, the assignee of the tricycle, after Ms. Lacsamana, line-in partner of the accused, failed to pay the balance of P 14,000 for the installment of the tricycle. The accused denies the charges against him. The Facts Zenny Aguirre, account officer of BDC Corporation gave her version of the events. In May 2003, Ma. Teresa Lacsamana obtained a loan from BDC Corporation amounting to P 80,000 which is payable within 30 months. Loan was evidenced my Kasunduan between the SCCPPTODA and BCD Corporation, promissory note and chattel mortgage. After the loan was granted, the BDC Corporation released the tricycle to Ms. Lacsamana. Ms. Lacsamana failed to pay the loan and on October 2, 2003, BDC pulled out the tricycle in pursuant to the Kasunduan that if the borrowers were unable to pay, the tricycle could be pulled out from him. The tricycle was placed under the temporary management of the treasurer of the group and BDC took it, and Ms. Lacsamana was

2. Here is the TSN of the cross-examination conducted by Atty. The tricycle was kept by the corporation until November 20 and transferred it to the new assignee named Carlos Paredes. 2003. Mr. After the corporation didn’t allow Mr. On October 18. they reported to the police station. Whether or not Romulo Takad is guilty of violating Republic Act 6539 or otherwise known as Anti Carnapping Law. On November 21. Takad said “Huwag na huwag kong makikita yang tricycle sa Pasig”. at around 1:00 am. to pay for her to redeem the tricycle. Lacsamana and Takad to pay the outstanding balance. Lacsamana is the owner of the tricycle. The Issues The Court defined the issues in this case in its pre-trial as follows: 1. Mario Mankas saw Carlos Parlade running after the tricycle that was stolen. neighbor of Carlos Parlade. the new assignee of the tricycle gave his version of the events.given until October 17. Mr. Ms. Takad went to the office of BCD Corporation to pay the outstanding balance of their loan but the corporation didn’t grant their request due to failure to pay on time. Zenny Aguirre. at 1:00am. Parlade. Zenny Aguire that the tricycle was missing. pushing the tricycle away. Carlos Paredes informed Ms. Ms. BGC Corporation does not own the tricycle. Takad but the accused faced him and kicked him and drove away. Arguments I. The incident was said to be witnessed by Mario Mankas. Carlos Parlade. the account officer of BDC Corporation. Parlade saw the accused Takad. Carlos Parlade reported the incident to Zenny Aguire and on 1:30 in the afternoon of the same day. the portion is as follows: . Cruz to Ms. Lacsamana and Mr. Whether or not BGC Corporation owns the tricycle. Parlade shouted at the Mr. Mr. at the residence of Mr. On November 21.

Cruz: You took it from her because she could not pay her debt. sir. it was not BDC that brought the tricycle. But the money used in buying the tricycle was the money of BDC. Cruz: Who is the owner of the tricycle? Zenny Aguirre: Ma. you said that BDC loaned Ms. Lacsamana is a member. Teresa Lacsamana is the owner of the tricycle. Cruz: Did you get a court order transferring ownership of the tricycle from Ms. Atty. Atty. since she had not paid her obligation. it was Ms. The money used to buy the tricycle was the group loan obtained from BDC Corporation by SCCPPTODA which Ms. is that right? Zenny Aguirre: No. right? Zenny Aguirre: Yes. Lacsamana? Zenny Aguirre: no. Lacsamana before it was stolen? Zenny Aguirre: No. The loan agreement between BCD Corporation and SCCPPTODA was evidenced by the Kasunduan marked as Exhibit “A”. Atty. BDC owns the tricycle. sir. It is true that the money used to by the tricycle was the loan obtained by Ms. Cruz: Did you make an effort to buy the tricycle from Ms. Atty. Lacsamana who brought the tricycle? Zenny Aguirre: Yes. Lacsamana from BDC but the tricycle was brought not by BDC but by Ms . sir. Lacsamana to BGC Corporation before you took the tricycle? Zenny Aguirre: No. sir Atty. Lacsamana the money. which she used to buy the tricycle. the ownership of the tricycle is automatically transferred to BDC. Cruz: Let us make it clear. Cruz: Did you get a court order authorizing you to take the tricycle from Ms. sir Atty. sir. Cruz: it is your understanding that when she did not pay her debt.Atty.

ibenta o ilipat ng pagmamay-ari hangga’t hindi pa lubusang nababayaran ang pagkakautang sa BDC. the owner of the tricycle was not BDC Corporation but Ms. Lacsamana will not cease to be the owner of the tricycle by her failure to comply with her obligations. Romulo Takad did not violate Republic Act 6539 or otherwise known as Anti-Carnapping Law of 1972 Section 2 of Republic Act 6539 defined Carnapping as: .Lacsamana. 15. In pursuant to the Kasunduan. According to the Kasunduan between BGC Corporation and SCCPPTODA which states: 15. Therefore.1 Kapag ang isang kasapi ay hindi makapagbigay ng tatlong karampatang arawang hulog-bayad sa loob ng isang kinsenas o napapaloob sa isang tseke sa BDC. II. The Kasunduan between BGC Corporation and SCCPPTODA didn’t state that failure of a member to pay their obligation due would automatically transfer the ownership of the tricycle to BGC Corporation. Ang tricycle na mula sa inutang sa BDC ay hindi maaaring isanla. failure of the members of SAMAHAN to pay their obligations. ang kanyang tricycle ay hahatakin ng SAMAHAN kasama ang linya (TODA) at prangkisa at ito ay pangangasiwaan ng SAMAHAN para sa darating na arawang hulog-bayad ng kasaping nagkasala.2 Ang nahatak na tricycle ay mananatili sa pangangasiwa ng SAMAHAN hangga’t hindi lubos na nababayaran ang nagging pagkukulang sa SAMAHAN. Ms.3. the tricycle could be pulled out from the owner and will be under the temporary management of the treasurer of the SAMAHAN until the obligation are finally settled. Lacsamana. 15.

00000 564 Sampaguita St. 02-29-2012. a motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter’s consent. with intent to gain. Ericka Raye B. 02-29-2012. of a motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter's consent. or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons. Ayala Homes Mandaluyong City Copy furnished: Atty. he cannot be convicted with the crime of Carnapping under Republic Act 6539 because the tricycle was owned not by BGC Corporation or Carlos Parlade. premise considered. PRAYER WHEREFORE. Mandaluyong City Roll No. Other forms of relief and remedies are just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for. 0000000. Lacsamana.Carnapping is the taking. Quezon City IBP No. Assuming that the said vehicle that was taken away by the defendant. 0000000. To dismiss the case against the defendant. 2012 PTR No. The owner of the tricycle is Ms. Isidro De Leon Prosecutor III . the live-in partner of the defendant. Romulo Takad did not commit the crime of Carnapping because it is the taking with intent to gain. it respectfully prayed for that this Honorable Court to render judgment: 1. or by using force upon things In connection with the definition of Carnapping stated in Section 2 of Republic Act 6539. Singson March 20.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful